STORYLINE Sacramento

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Sacramento close to going digital

by Justin Smith, published on March 23, 2010 at 12:23 AM

Storyline: Sacramento RSS Feed

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

Loading images

The City of Sacramento is negotiating a deal with Clear Channel Outdoor (CCO) to install four digital billboards along several freeways within city limits.

The four proposed digital billboards would be located at Interstate 80 at Northgate, Interstate 5 at Richards Blvd., Capital City Freeway at Fulton Ave., and Highway 99 at Mack Road.

The city’s goals for installing the digital billboards are to diversify and increase city funds.

According to Tom Zeidner, the senior economic development project manager, the financial terms between the city and CCO are still being negotiated, and he is not able to discuss the specifics.

The revenue the city is expected to earn and how it will be distributed among districts is still tentative.

The current city code does not allow for new digital billboards to be constructed unless the city enters into a ‘relocation agreement,’ which requires sign owners to remove a billboard if another is built.

When this deal was first being hatched, Zeidner proposed that for every digital billboard built, three traditional billboards would be taken down.

The zoning requirements to build a digital billboard need to fall under either a commercial or industrial zoned area. One of the proposed billboards would be located in an agricultural zone, soon to be rezoned to allow for the construction of the billboard.

Concerns have been raised by community groups about the dangers and the carbon emissions the digital billboards will pose. The McKinley East Sacramento Neighborhood Association (MENA) has been active in opposing the billboards.

MENA recently sent a letter to the city’s planning department breaking down the energy use and the emissions from one digital billboard. It states that “a standard digital billboard consumes 397,486 kWh/year. One digital billboard is responsible for 108.41 tons/year of carbon dioxide.”

In other words, the greenhouse gas emissions are equal to just fewer than 14 homes or 18 cars.

An environmental impact report done by the city used SMUD’s emissions to factor how much energy the billboards will use.

The environmental impact report took into account the dangers billboards pose, distraction to the driver, how the intensity of the light may interfere with the drivers’ vision and possible reflection the signs
pose.

Several mitigation measures have been put in place in accordance Caltrans that include no special effects that include moving or flashing lights.

From the looks of things, the city and CCO are close to sealing this deal.

“We expect to come back to Council with the financials for the deal as well as the language for the updated sign ordinance in April,” wrote Daniel Roth, the district director, in an e-mail.

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

March 23, 2010 | 8:34 AM
Ick. Really? What does the city possibly see as a benefit of installing these wasteful eyesores? Why is staff time (read: taxpayer money) being spent on re-zoning to allow billboards? Utterly ridiculous as far as I can tell.

By the way, I'm adding a thumbs up for the article and the writer...definitely NOT a thumbs up for this stupid idea.
2 0
REPLY
Tsy
Author thumbnail
March 23, 2010 | 8:44 AM
From the looks of things, the information provided in this article might not reflect the Caltrans' take on the aforementioned "deal".

Perhaps, before writing articles like this one - Justin Smith might want to contact Caltrans' Public Information Office and check the particular details of the "deal".

"Sacramento going digital" is certainly a flashy title. But does it have any substance?
Could Fox News' preemptive announcement of Bush’s victory over Gore be of any use as an analogy in this case? Who knows?

After all, from the looks of things, the city and Clear Channel might not be as close to sealing the deal as the author of this article appears to suggest.
0 2
REPLY
March 23, 2010 | 9:04 AM
Well, one-comment wonder, why don't you provide some facts, then?
1 0
REPLY
March 24, 2010 | 12:00 AM
hmm...ironic. I picked this story up from Fox News. I tried to keep it fair and balanced, no dice? I googled some facts and made some determinations. Now that I think of it why don't you tell me everyone I should interview? I would really like to make you happy.
0 0
REPLY
March 23, 2010 | 1:34 PM
Hope they're not too bright when driving at night, the Folsom Lake Automall sign on HWY 50 is blinding.
2 0
REPLY
March 23, 2010 | 3:06 PM
Yuck! I'm with you StellaM
1 0
REPLY
March 23, 2010 | 6:05 PM
Staff time is being spent on the re-zoning because the end result would be a revenue stream for the city: Clear Channel would pay the city for the use, hopefully paying for that staff time manyfold.

Having seen electronic billboards in Los Angeles, I was kind of impressed by them: many were difficult to tell from a conventional billboard, until the image on it suddenly changed. The older-school ones like Cal Expo or Sac State are more distracting and produce more glare, but the new ones are pretty slick. I'm ordinarily no fan of billboards or Clear Channel, but I don't really mind the idea. And if they are replacing several conventional billboards for each electronic one, there will be fewer total billboards!
0 0
REPLY
March 23, 2010 | 6:25 PM
Well, dang. Now I have to re-think my whole opinion on this. I usually agree with your opinions, William.

I was picturing that they'd look exactly like the Cal Expo and Sac State billboard, which make my teeth itch, my eyes cross, and probably cause epilepsy.

But, hmmm...there is the carbon footprint thing to consider on these.
0 0
REPLY
March 24, 2010 | 1:53 AM
There is--one question I have is how much energy they use vs. a conventional billboard. But if one electronic replaces three conventional, my question is, do they use less power than 3 conventional billboards? If so, then it's a greener solution than 3 regular billboards. If not, then that's not so good.
0 0
REPLY
March 24, 2010 | 11:47 AM
On page 38 of the Environmental Impact Report, "the organization equated these emissions to what is typically used in 49 standard billboards, 18 cars or 13 homes"

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/planning/environmental-review/eirs/documents/Digital-Billboard_IS-MND_Revised_3-11-10.pdf
1 0
REPLY
March 24, 2010 | 6:50 PM
Well, that doesn't sound very low carbon footprint to me.
0 0
REPLY
March 25, 2010 | 7:32 PM
Hm...yeah, that's not so good.
0 0
REPLY
March 24, 2010 | 11:43 PM
Low carbon footprint I don't know. LEDs which these billboards run don't require a lot of energy. BUT I fear for those living and driving in Sacramento who have to look at this crap when politicians at every level and of every stripe get their grubby little and shameless tenterhooks in digital billboard advertising during elections. I don't think advertising should be the end game to making money, even for the city, or diversifying it, or whatever. But what the hell, people have TVs in their cars, so maybe drivers won't notice the billboards.
Brought to you by Coke and Marshall McLuhan
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below.
Use commas to separate your tags.

Cancel Submit

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background